ScaupHunter wrote:He is trying to enage you on the ideas that we are all morally and emotionally damaged by the destruction of another life. Toss in the demeaning of a human being through exectution and the deeper statement that makes about our society as a whole. Then you need to dig into the personal gratification and vengeance effect. Which involves a segment of our society that would thrive on and enjoy commercializing it and allowing those who enjoy that type of thing to watch.

What he seem to really be saying is that he doesn't agree with us being "barbarians" and wants you to consider the higher issues. All the time denying that humans are barbarians and the veneer of civilization is thin. New Orleans after Katrina is an excellent example.

That's not bad..... Keeping in mind that I am personally OK with capital punishment as long as I get to be judge, jury and executioner. And that thin as the veneer of civilization may be, it's all we've got, and worth protecting

Extrapolating from the concept that the civilized aspect of society is a thin veneer, do we want to continue to shave that veneer down until it first becomes translucent, then clearly transparent? Or would it benefit us to continue to do that which adds solidity to that veneer? Makes it stronger and more intrinsic to the society it coats? Transform it from a facade, to a veneer, to a core substance? If you take a thin veneer of gold to a medallion of tin, it looks better for a bit but the appearance fades quickly and has no staying power. Plus, everyone with familiarity in the products realizes that it is a thin veneer over a cheap, shoddy core. If, however, layer upon layer of gold is layed upon that cheap core, at some point the core becomes meaningless, and the value resides in the gold in which the "basic inner core" is irrelevant to the value of the item as a whole. A complete transformation in the quality of the item has occured, but the inner core remains the same. It has simply become irrelevant, and is only exposed when there is a serious rending of the entire item. So, given a choice, do we strive to take those items with a thin veneer and dispose of them as a cheap product, or do we do that which subtly, slowly and unnoticeably increases the value until the difference between it and an item of pure gold is for the most part meaningless?

You want to put lipstick on the pig? As an engineer and a blacksmith I would never start with a crappy piece of steel or inferior product and then try and coat it enough to make it work. Laying coatings of gold over a tin core is not making it better. It just creates the opportunity for the opportunistic human nature to rear up and try and sell that piece as all gold by weight. Putting lipstick on the pig is going to fix anything. It only make things worse.

We all know the veneer of civilization is very thin. Humans are predators. We have two sharp teeth in the front of our mouths for a reason. We hunt, kill, and destroy our own kind and all other creatures with abandon. The people who are to afraid or incapable of taking care of themselve run and hide behind that thin veneer. they grasp onto it like a life buoy from a sinking ship. Others use it to try and feel superior or enlightened. Others use it as a bludgeon to force their agendas onto others. None of it changes the core of humanity or our nature. We are neither good nor evil by nature. We are predators that hunt and kill for our food and fight for survival by nature. Being a higher thinking animal does not change our biology. Nor does trying to feel superior or hiding behind others skirts. If you truly want to be free you have to be willing to risk, dare, and take the chances that life brings. Freedom is not a nanny government state. It is the right and ability to make your own decisions and live your life as you wish so long as you bring no harm to others.

We argue about the higher and greater good here from time to time. Guess what, both sides want the greater good for humanity . One side sees murdering unborn children and protecting murderers as a viable definition of that greater good. The other side sees protecting unborn children and killing murderers as the greater good. These are generalizations, but they fit the liberal / conservative arguments nicely. There is simply no supportable evidence that allowing abortions, and protecting criminals has enhanced our society in any way. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. What with ridiculous incarceration rates in the US. Rampant crime, in small condensed areas of the nation ( liberal strongholds, one and all ), and ridiculous stats like 70% of black children are born out of wedlock, etc....... That is what the veneer of civilization buys you. Eventually when a society denies it's nature and allows the resolve and moral center of its society to die, that society dies with it.

America became great and a world power by kicking the crap out of our enemies. Every great power and great nation in the world has become great through the exact same method. It is simply human nature. I challenge our liberal brothers here to name one great nation that has not risen on the power at the tip of the spear, sword, or gun. There are quite simply none in the worlds history. After working on that, I challenge them to name one nation that reached the point the US is in economically, physically, morally, and as a society and survived. The liberal agenda no matter how hard you believe it is one of defeat and despotism. It always has been and always will be. Why? Because it simply has to force everyone to comply or it will never work. Despite the fact that it never works and never has. History writes the story over, and over, and over, yet modern liberals think they can make the story change.

I am not saying to throw away the veneer of civilization. I am saying we need to grasp the reality of our nature as humans. We need to stop with all the babysitting and crying over bad behavior while excusing it at every turn. Instead of protecting everyone from everything, use the law to remove criminals from the system permanently. Actually protect society instead of people who have proven by their own choices and acts they don't belong in society. Allow each citizen to earn their own rewards and consequences. That is what freedom is all about.

Wow, that is some seriously self-righteous bullshit, Scaup. I used to crank that kind of stuff up in high school when I didn't have anything to say on the essay tests……….look, you sort of caught on to what I was saying earlier when I alluded to (in a thread about Christianity) the twin issues of forgiveness and vengeance (let's add a third, OK? Redemption. 'Tis the season and all that) Let's actually discuss that instead of playing this stupid pigeon-hole-the-liberal game. I said (and you clearly understood, even if Spinner did not) that there are damages to the human soul (don't go all TomKat on me and start screaming that I have no right to the term "soul" because I don't go to church) I think you see the potential for danger there as well as I do, although I wasn't so much speaking to a devolving civilization as I was a personal evolution. Like I said, Jesus did not subvert the law (except when he wouldn't join in stoning the adulteress) but he insisted that everyone who DID want to first undergo a little introspection. He spoke over and over about forgiveness, but I think it's pretty clear that he did not intend criminals to go unpunished. Those words of wisdom, I think, were meant for the punishers, NOT the punished. They were a warning about what can happen to the soul, as an individual or as a community, when it fails to grasp the dark side of putting oneself in a position of supreme power over another of God's children. Personally, I'm good with capital punishment, except I don't trust anyone (certainly not the government) with coordinating the effort. So I'm never likely to vote to support it, because somehow the bills are not likely to stipulate BDD2 as judge, jury and executioner. Now I'll finish with another jab at you (that's called thematic unity) At least the ideas I'm throwing out there are original, and they are very germane to the subject at hand. Yours were subject appropriate, but you just ain't bringing anything to the table. I wish you would, because every now and then you shock me with your ability to think clearly and subjectively. Much as the engineers want to rail against the notion, it CAN be done. It must be done, in fact, because civilization does not proceed by calculus alone

"We have met the enemy, and he is us."Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up

Glimmerjim wrote:However, we've all agreed that humanity has issues with peaceful coexistence. That is the core you have to work with. The question we are dealing with is how to give that core more value, to make it better than it was. There seem to be two trains of thought at work here.

Exactly.

Trains of thought:

1)Those that espouse it feel superior for espousing it while it fails miserably in practice because of Republican sabotage.

2) Those that have to fight the ones that espouse the failed practices and policies to find practical solutions that actually works.

blackduckdog2 wrote: you clearly understood, even if Spinner did not

Sorry I didn't realize you were making a statement so obvious. Something that you would never weigh so heavily if it did not support the position that you espouse. Abortion and ordering the death of an innocent child - clearly far more soul sucking than ordering the death of a murderer, but in debating the approriate punishment for murderers and rapist, it is important. Abortion, it is not. Of course it is and everybody is well aware that it is. Just look at the behavior of so many abortionists. They are total screwed in the head because of this. Maybe we can make them the executioner since they are already a lost cause.

Booker served time in prison for tax evasion in 1999. Shortly before he went behind bars, police discovered 36 bags of aborted babies in a storage unit that had been owned by the doctor.

And look at that abortionist in Philly. This is not surprising because I was way ahead of you on that obvious point.

But hey, if it makes you feel smart that I did not realize that you thought such an obvious point was not obvious. Just please weigh it as heavily when it is in contradiction to the position you hold on other things.

But to be clear, I agree completely which is why the power to execute or imprison, or confiscate property must not be a unilateral decision and the process must meet strict rules and procedures and involve serious penalties for those that violate them.

blackduckdog2 wrote:Personally, I'm good with capital punishment, except I don't trust anyone (certainly not the government) with coordinating the effort.

Life without parole, can government do that? How about anything that involves life and death? Health care certainly is a question of life and death, but you seem to trust government to coordinate that even though vastly more innocent lives are on the line than capital punishment.

Basically, you trust government when it suits you and don't when it does not. And you are smart enough to talk in big enough circles that you can't follow the logical inconsistency and realize you are just going in circles.

A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.

SpinnerMan wrote:Basically, you trust government when it suits you and don't when it does not. And you are smart enough to talk in big enough circles that you can't follow the logical inconsistency and realize you are just going in circles.

Life and death issues will impact the trust levels of a reasonable mind

"We have met the enemy, and he is us."Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up

SpinnerMan wrote:Basically, you trust government when it suits you and don't when it does not. And you are smart enough to talk in big enough circles that you can't follow the logical inconsistency and realize you are just going in circles.

Life and death issues will impact the trust levels of a reasonable mind

That's why I don't trust them to run health care, save for my retirement, ...

These are all life and death issues. They really are. The more resources I have in my retirement, the less likely me or my wife will die prematurely.

The death penalty requires a UNANIMOUS verdict of 12 jurors, the decision to pursue charges by a prosecutor, the handing up of an indictment by a grand jury, upholding of the proceeding by a number of appeals judges, and certification by the governor or variations there of, it already has a huge amount of mistrust built into the system as it should.

We should increase severely the penalties for lying by witnesses and if it is ever proven that their lies lead to the execution, they should face felony murder charges and the harsh penalty that comes with it.

We should expedite the appeals. This process MUST be more efficient and given that they are not reviewing the facts of the case, much of what they are reviewing should result in the equivalent of malpractice investigations at a minimum and possibly criminal charges. If people screwed up so badly that the death penalty trial was not a fair trial, there must be consequences because you are correct that it is that serious.

We need to take law enforcement far more seriously. It is life and death as seen by the large number of deaths that are routine in parts of Chicago, Detroit, and so many other places.

We need to take traffic safety far more seriously. It is life and death as seen by the roughly 100 people that lose their life every single day.

While the government is off having a good time spending OPM, they neglect so many life and death issues that should be their top priority and not the fun stuff like building monuments to your self and buying votes so you are secure in your cushy job.

A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.

ScaupHunter wrote:He is trying to enage you on the ideas that we are all morally and emotionally damaged by the destruction of another life. Toss in the demeaning of a human being through exectution and the deeper statement that makes about our society as a whole. Then you need to dig into the personal gratification and vengeance effect. Which involves a segment of our society that would thrive on and enjoy commercializing it and allowing those who enjoy that type of thing to watch.

What he seem to really be saying is that he doesn't agree with us being "barbarians" and wants you to consider the higher issues. All the time denying that humans are barbarians and the veneer of civilization is thin. New Orleans after Katrina is an excellent example.

That's not bad..... Keeping in mind that I am personally OK with capital punishment as long as I get to be judge, jury and executioner. And that thin as the veneer of civilization may be, it's all we've got, and worth protecting

Extrapolating from the concept that the civilized aspect of society is a thin veneer, do we want to continue to shave that veneer down until it first becomes translucent, then clearly transparent? Or would it benefit us to continue to do that which adds solidity to that veneer? Makes it stronger and more intrinsic to the society it coats? Transform it from a facade, to a veneer, to a core substance? If you take a thin veneer of gold to a medallion of tin, it looks better for a bit but the appearance fades quickly and has no staying power. Plus, everyone with familiarity in the products realizes that it is a thin veneer over a cheap, shoddy core. If, however, layer upon layer of gold is layed upon that cheap core, at some point the core becomes meaningless, and the value resides in the gold in which the "basic inner core" is irrelevant to the value of the item as a whole. A complete transformation in the quality of the item has occured, but the inner core remains the same. It has simply become irrelevant, and is only exposed when there is a serious rending of the entire item. So, given a choice, do we strive to take those items with a thin veneer and dispose of them as a cheap product, or do we do that which subtly, slowly and unnoticeably increases the value until the difference between it and an item of pure gold is for the most part meaningless?

You want to put lipstick on the pig? As an engineer and a blacksmith I would never start with a crappy piece of steel or inferior product and then try and coat it enough to make it work. Laying coatings of gold over a tin core is not making it better. It just creates the opportunity for the opportunistic human nature to rear up and try and sell that piece as all gold by weight. Putting lipstick on the pig is going to fix anything. It only make things worse.

We all know the veneer of civilization is very thin. Humans are predators. We have two sharp teeth in the front of our mouths for a reason. We hunt, kill, and destroy our own kind and all other creatures with abandon. The people who are to afraid or incapable of taking care of themselve run and hide behind that thin veneer. they grasp onto it like a life buoy from a sinking ship. Others use it to try and feel superior or enlightened. Others use it as a bludgeon to force their agendas onto others. None of it changes the core of humanity or our nature. We are neither good nor evil by nature. We are predators that hunt and kill for our food and fight for survival by nature. Being a higher thinking animal does not change our biology. Nor does trying to feel superior or hiding behind others skirts. If you truly want to be free you have to be willing to risk, dare, and take the chances that life brings. Freedom is not a nanny government state. It is the right and ability to make your own decisions and live your life as you wish so long as you bring no harm to others.

We argue about the higher and greater good here from time to time. Guess what, both sides want the greater good for humanity . One side sees murdering unborn children and protecting murderers as a viable definition of that greater good. The other side sees protecting unborn children and killing murderers as the greater good. These are generalizations, but they fit the liberal / conservative arguments nicely. There is simply no supportable evidence that allowing abortions, and protecting criminals has enhanced our society in any way. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. What with ridiculous incarceration rates in the US. Rampant crime, in small condensed areas of the nation ( liberal strongholds, one and all ), and ridiculous stats like 70% of black children are born out of wedlock, etc....... That is what the veneer of civilization buys you. Eventually when a society denies it's nature and allows the resolve and moral center of its society to die, that society dies with it.

America became great and a world power by kicking the crap out of our enemies. Every great power and great nation in the world has become great through the exact same method. It is simply human nature. I challenge our liberal brothers here to name one great nation that has not risen on the power at the tip of the spear, sword, or gun. There are quite simply none in the worlds history. After working on that, I challenge them to name one nation that reached the point the US is in economically, physically, morally, and as a society and survived. The liberal agenda no matter how hard you believe it is one of defeat and despotism. It always has been and always will be. Why? Because it simply has to force everyone to comply or it will never work. Despite the fact that it never works and never has. History writes the story over, and over, and over, yet modern liberals think they can make the story change.

I am not saying to throw away the veneer of civilization. I am saying we need to grasp the reality of our nature as humans. We need to stop with all the babysitting and crying over bad behavior while excusing it at every turn. Instead of protecting everyone from everything, use the law to remove criminals from the system permanently. Actually protect society instead of people who have proven by their own choices and acts they don't belong in society. Allow each citizen to earn their own rewards and consequences. That is what freedom is all about.

Wow, that is some seriously self-righteous bullshit, Scaup. I used to crank that kind of stuff up in high school when I didn't have anything to say on the essay tests……….look, you sort of caught on to what I was saying earlier when I alluded to (in a thread about Christianity) the twin issues of forgiveness and vengeance (let's add a third, OK? Redemption. 'Tis the season and all that) Let's actually discuss that instead of playing this stupid pigeon-hole-the-liberal game. I said (and you clearly understood, even if Spinner did not) that there are damages to the human soul (don't go all TomKat on me and start screaming that I have no right to the term "soul" because I don't go to church) I think you see the potential for danger there as well as I do, although I wasn't so much speaking to a devolving civilization as I was a personal evolution. Like I said, Jesus did not subvert the law (except when he wouldn't join in stoning the adulteress) but he insisted that everyone who DID want to first undergo a little introspection. He spoke over and over about forgiveness, but I think it's pretty clear that he did not intend criminals to go unpunished. Those words of wisdom, I think, were meant for the punishers, NOT the punished. They were a warning about what can happen to the soul, as an individual or as a community, when it fails to grasp the dark side of putting oneself in a position of supreme power over another of God's children. Personally, I'm good with capital punishment, except I don't trust anyone (certainly not the government) with coordinating the effort. So I'm never likely to vote to support it, because somehow the bills are not likely to stipulate BDD2 as judge, jury and executioner. Now I'll finish with another jab at you (that's called thematic unity) At least the ideas I'm throwing out there are original, and they are very germane to the subject at hand. Yours were subject appropriate, but you just ain't bringing anything to the table. I wish you would, because every now and then you shock me with your ability to think clearly and subjectively. Much as the engineers want to rail against the notion, it CAN be done. It must be done, in fact, because civilization does not proceed by calculus alone

Unwad your panties. Liberals in general as mentioned love to bring up a ton of things and point them out, suddenly you want to cry when I point out the obvious? Self righteous? Not even close. You need to get your dictionary out and reread that definition there bubba.

There is nothing original about the ideas you are putting out. They have been beaten to death a million times. Not here necessarily but they have been worked to death elsewhere. If you are a devout Christian you have discussed and hear sermons on all of the subjects you are touching on frequently. Americans as a whole are totally disconnnected from and unable to process death well. We rarely face it when compared to most of the world. Those who don't face death often make light of it, dismiss using it, and often act like it can never happen. A very typical emotional response for an American or European. Talk about death with an African, a middle eastern person, or an asian and the discussion will go very differently and be a lot closer to home. Most of them see death on a weekly or monthly basis for a variety of reasons.

The idea that the soul is damaged by causing death is real. So long as you are American or live in a society that values life. In many societies that do not, people revel in killing others. They are heroes. They believe that the killings were good and totally justified. In those societies your entire hypothesis is not only wrong, it is completely untenable and unsupportable. You are practicing a classic american ideal here. That being the projection of your own views onto everyone else. It is an easy and cheap escape when you don't factor in the reality of life and other cultures and perspectives that don't match yours.

I fully understand the dangers and damage to the soul caused by the destruction of another human. I saw it first hand with immature boys and men who had not mentally prepared for it. I have seen the continuing destruction of lives that can happen. I have also dealt with and come to grips with it myself. Having done all of that the sacrifices were and are worth it. Some things have to be done. Some things are worth both dying and killing for.

As for forgiveness, judgement, and punishment. That is not for us as humans to manage for others. I am the only person who has to be right with God in my life. Others have to make their own decisions and act accordingly. I cannot force them to be right with God, worry about their souls, nor ponder the deeper issues of death. That is for each person to determine for themselves. Only God knows your heart. Only God can truly punish a sinner or reward the faithful. Killing a human on earth for crimes against humanity is not punishment. It is removing a coyote from the sheep. God will handle their punishment, God will judge them, God will determine if they recieve forgiveness for their sins. As individuals we have to determine for ourselves if we forgive a person for their sins against us or others. We as individuals do not stand in judgment of others, our society sets laws and processes in place. That system stands in judgement of individuals actions under the law and hands down actions to prevent further damage to others in our society. Our system should not include forgiveness. It is irrelevant in the human criminal system. Attempting to incorporate it is a significant part of why our court systems are totally screwed up today.

Why would any Christian believe in anything but capital punishment? I can't think of one good reason. God is the judge of sins. God determines forgiveness. God determines eternal punishment or eternal life. God ordered the deaths of entire societies. He is both forgiving and accepting, and wrathful and harsh. Societies job is to ensure that law abiding citizens rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are secured. Part of that is hunting down, convicting and destroying the predators who destroy those rights. God handles the rest.

God isn't going to hold a justified killing of a human against me. He will hold the unjust murder of one against me. God will not allow me to burn in Hell for things I repent of and truly ask forgiveness for. He will allow it if I fail to repent and become right with him. Why in the world should I believe that our courts should work any differently? When you have a criminal with 2 to 10 pages of rap sheet information that criminal needs a bullet in the head. TThey should have gotten the bullet in the first place. don't care if they are a thief, a white collar criminal, or a murder. They need to be removed from society to prevent further actions against the rights of others. I am with spinner when he says that life in prison is far worse than a rapid hanging the next day. It is frankly inhumane in so many ways.

Since you hate cliche's here is one that fits this subject perfectly. Kill them all. Let God sort them out.

Six out of 10 inmates paroled from Pennsylvania prisons were arrested again within three years

Just think of that. There are a minimum of 6 more victims for every 10 people let out of jail. And that is just the ones that are caught. As we know, the odds are most of the 4 not arrested were not because they did not victimize, but only because they were not caught given that 6 were caught and the low odds of a criminal getting arrested.

However, it was not all these people victimized because we released these prisoners, it was exactly this thought that came to mind.

ScaupHunter wrote:When you have a criminal with 2 to 10 pages of rap sheet information

Are we only putting someone in jail after they are beyond repair? Someone should not have enough free time to get to multiple pages of a rap sheet. By the time, they are getting on to their second page, they should have spent a lot of time in jail. By the time they get to their third, even if we refuse to execute them, they should have spent so much time behind bars that they are too damned old to have time to get many more pages before they just die of old age.

I think it is absolutely this try forgiveness first approach that teach them early on that, hey, what's the big deal, I get arrested, I get some grief, but I'm back at it in no time, so by the time they do get some serious jail time and get out on parole, they just can't change if they wanted to.

I've mention my Uncle and his two DUIs and his jail time. That is his only 2 arrests. If we did the same thing with other criminals, maybe we could turn them around. We clearly fail miserably to do so right now.

My mom's cousin was a bum. He was a little guy with big beer muscles. He'd get drunk, start a fight, get his ass kick, get arrested, and then get kicked loose. He got arrested for a number of other things as well. This went on for years. I'll bet his rap sheet weighed more than he did. He never spent enough time in jail. I think toward the end he got maybe 60 days once. Finally, at around age 40 he decided it was too hard being homeless in PA and headed to Florida and has never been heard of since. It's been probably 20 years, so he's probably dead. The system was extremely forgiving and it ruined his life. That's typical.

I'm all for a one time, get straight or get your ass handed to you, approach assuming no permanent or serious harm was intended by your crime and it wasn't insanely risky to other people. I should have risked time in jail for some of the dumbass crap I did behind the wheel as a kid. It nearly costed the lives of 7 kids. It didn't and I learned instantly how stupid and dangerous I was. Had I been risking more than a few hundred dollars in fines, I might have thought twice. How many kids are not as lucky as we were and how many lives might be saved? We have got much better with the DUI, although I think it is not perfect. We need to do the same for other crimes that are such a threat. If you think people should go to jail for crimes where no one is actually harmed and there was never an intent to harm anyone, but were just too reckless, how can you not think people that intentionally and willfully kill people not get death?

Back to Jim's original question. I just don't see anything that is contradictory with being a person with great compassion for his fellow man. It's unpleasant, but it is right.

A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.

Wait, Wait WAIT………….I'm doing it again. I'm trying to have an ethical discussion with two guys who believe, respectively, that we should kill a few million Moslems every now and then, just to keep them in line (I have the quotes) and a guy who can't see the downside to allowing body parts on the open market. Jesus, I'm such a hopeless Pollyanna

"We have met the enemy, and he is us."Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up

Recent reports and CCTV footage from China show a disturbing event and a distraught mother. A 10-year-old appeared to take a toddler and beat him and is suspected of throwing him from the 25th floor of an apartment building. The girl has reportedly gotten away without punishment for her actions thus far, causing outrage in the Chinese blogosphere.

The incident occurred in Chongqing, a city in southwest China, on Nov. 25, according to Shanghaiist. Video, which was just released in local media reports this week, shows a boy, identified by the name Yuanyuan, under 2 years old accidentally left in the building elevator by his mother. According to the CTV news report, she had pulled out his toy bike but the elevator doors closed before she could reach him.

toddler beatenThe toddler who was beaten and reportedly thrown from a balcony. (Image source: CTV)The mother in the CTV news report was visibly distressed, crying as she recounted what happened and holding her hand over her heart at times.

mother of toddlerThe mother of the toddler was beyond upset when speaking to media about what happened. (Image source: CTV)Surveillance footage showed a 10-year-old girl finding him. The girl picked him up and then proceeded to drop him and kick him several times.

It is unclear what happened next, but the CTV report includes footage showing blood spots on the floor inside and outside the apartment building. Shanghaiist reported that broken bushes outside a balcony where the girl was said to live suggest the toddler was thrown.

“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930

Recent reports and CCTV footage from China show a disturbing event and a distraught mother. A 10-year-old appeared to take a toddler and beat him and is suspected of throwing him from the 25th floor of an apartment building. The girl has reportedly gotten away without punishment for her actions thus far, causing outrage in the Chinese blogosphere.

The incident occurred in Chongqing, a city in southwest China, on Nov. 25, according to Shanghaiist. Video, which was just released in local media reports this week, shows a boy, identified by the name Yuanyuan, under 2 years old accidentally left in the building elevator by his mother. According to the CTV news report, she had pulled out his toy bike but the elevator doors closed before she could reach him.

toddler beatenThe toddler who was beaten and reportedly thrown from a balcony. (Image source: CTV)The mother in the CTV news report was visibly distressed, crying as she recounted what happened and holding her hand over her heart at times.

mother of toddlerThe mother of the toddler was beyond upset when speaking to media about what happened. (Image source: CTV)Surveillance footage showed a 10-year-old girl finding him. The girl picked him up and then proceeded to drop him and kick him several times.

It is unclear what happened next, but the CTV report includes footage showing blood spots on the floor inside and outside the apartment building. Shanghaiist reported that broken bushes outside a balcony where the girl was said to live suggest the toddler was thrown.

Present the evidence to me………I'll handle it

"We have met the enemy, and he is us."Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up

blackduckdog2 wrote:a guy who can't see the downside to allowing body parts on the open market.

This is where your arrogance and/or ignorance shows. When someone does not agree with you, it must because they are blind to the facts

At the core, you are just not open to the possibility that you are wrong.

Or maybe you can't just see the upside that many lives could be saved if prospective donors got more from their organs to leave to their heirs than if they allowed them to rot.

How many lives would be saved? Econ 101 tells us that the supply of organs would rise. I know liberals reject basic economics, so I guess there is no point in debating someone that rejects basic economic science.

Yeah, yeah, I know, it might not be the right lives that were saved, so screw them and let them die, those evil rich bastards.

Even though there are wildly more organs that could be made available than rich bastards needed them, but who cares if more people die if it is not done by communal methods.

The same reason you are wrong on the death penalty and abortion and pretty much all life and death issues.

Short sighted, close minded, emotionally overwrought, economically ignorant, and mathematically challenged, which is why when your like-minded are in control of life and death issues, risk of death goes way up and quality of life is reduced, but I still like debating

BTW, if you want to insult, that's how you do it. Not your silly snide condescending comments, but they do amuse me, so please keep being the stereotypical liberal.

A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.

blackduckdog2 wrote:a guy who can't see the downside to allowing body parts on the open market.

SpinnerMan wrote: This is where your arrogance and/or ignorance shows. When someone does not agree with you, it must because they are blind to the facts

At the core, you are just not open to the possibility that you are wrong.

Or maybe you can't just see the upside that many lives could be saved if prospective donors got more from their organs to leave to their heirs than if they allowed them to rot.

How many lives would be saved? Econ 101 tells us that the supply of organs would rise. I know liberals reject basic economics, so I guess there is no point in debating someone that rejects basic economic science.

I believe that you are allowing your personal biases to completely taint this opinion, Spinner. I know we all do that, and I am not singling YOU out for it, just singling out an example. I find it hard to even conceive the possible ramifications of opening a market for body parts. Your conclusion that BDD2 has based his opinion on wealth disparity is shallow, in my opinion. YOU are attempting to make this an issue that supports the foundation of your anti-Liberal fervor. First, there is NO WAY this could be an item auctioned off on e-bay to the highest bidder. NO WAY. It would be one of the most intensely scrutinized subjects and propositions in the history of mankind. Even the most conservative factions would struggle with this concept, in my opinion. Our health system is already skewed towards the ability to pay. The mere suggestion of making hearts available to the highest bidder would be the most counter-productive move the "free-market" advocate could envision. Secondly, many are faced with the decision to "pull the plug", or not, on one whom they have the ability to make this decision for. Do we want to throw this factor into the equation? There are already attorneys fighting both sides of this. Do you not remember the Terri Shiavo case? How would this case have been complicated and perceived by the public had there been two million in bids out for her organs after her death?How many scenes are depicted and envisioned, accurately, by the heirs waiting with bated breath for the wealthy uncle to pass away? Does this present a pretty picture to you? Expand that by the hordes that you feel would suddenly be trampling down the doors to market the organs of those in whom they have a financial stake. Not to mention the HUGE underground that would result from the potential collusion of murderers, doctors, attorneys, heirs, and ........"loved ones." Every concept that is ever envisioned by "free-market" advocates requires an army of attorneys to resolve issues that can be regulated. Personally, I feel that the influence of the multitudes of atty's that we already possess is the source of a GREAT many of our current malfunctions. We are already an instinctively litigious society. Disregard legislation and make everything subject to contractual adjudication and the proliferation of attorneys would make the tales of locust pestilence feel like someone complaining about seeing a rat in NYC.You accuse BDD2 of being short-sighted in this debate, Spinner. I respect the majority of your thoughts, whether I agree or not, and try to always give them fair consideration. In my opinion, you have missed the real point of this debate so far that you may have well have answered by talking about the gestation period of giraffes.Everything cannot be evaluated by monetary value, Spinner, even attempting to stipulate the engineer viewpoint. What dollar amount would you take for the love of your children? The life of your wife? If you really feel that a monetary incentive would expand the availability of bodily parts, first....that's a sad commentary. Secondly, give a tax-break. That would draw the vultures out that you are intending to appeal to without actually opening a weekend garage sale of grandma's retinas. Personally, I would be more than happy if you had to OPT OUT of donation of your organs than opt in. Sheer laziness would accomplish the goal without resorting to the hell-hole that would be the result of "auctions for adenoids." Once common, who would really care, or more accurately "object to", the possible life saving potentialities of having every body available for recycling? I can tell you who....religious zealots of one sect or another. If so, fine, let them live in their self-imposed "more righteous than thou......the Bible is not open to interpretation....You are condemned to an eternity of misery while I will be sitting at the foot of God attitude." I would HAVE to assume (foolishly in all probability) that should one of these people need a transplant they would not expect one. But I fully realize in saying that I am ignoring the reality of the strength of conviction when the subject strikes at home.

assateague wrote:It has nothing to do with money, and everything to do with personal freedom. Sorry you can't see that.

Why are they ALWAYS so mutually supportive, AT? I feel that I can adequately argue that EVERY tenet of the average, or true, conservative resides in monetary considerations. I also feel that it can be said that EVERY tenet of the average, or true, liberal resides in a desire to improve the human race. Many of both of these philosophical parties miss the mark widely in their efforts, granted. However, don't feel sorry for my lack of seeing "the point", AT. That would be contemptuously, if it weren't laughably, condescending. My opinion is provided on the remote chance you are not smugly and blatantly aware of it.Not to mention that your stating that position makes you appear to be completely naive about the majority of Spinner's intent. You might re-read his post.

SpinnerMan wrote:BTW, if you want to insult, that's how you do it. Not your silly snide condescending comments, but they do amuse me, so please keep being the stereotypical liberal.

I tried not even to be subtle in my point.

BDD2, assumes that I have not considered something that he thinks is the deciding factor as opposed to thinking that I simply have a different opinion on how things would play out in this hypothetical future. This IS a typical liberal thing. It is a typical human thing. However, I rarely think the liberals get that they are wrong and others have considered what they think is so important, but have simply come to a different opinion. He did it at least twice in this thread. I can see the potential downside. I just do not believe it is that large nor comes close the benefits and would be a huge net positive that would save many lives and improve the quality of life of a lot more.

Neither of us have a crystal ball and therefore cannot know the future and only have an opinion of how this work work in theory. And unlike liberals, I would proceed with cautious in case I was wrong and not ram a massive change like this through in a giant comprehensive change. It would be implemented slowly, step-by-step, cautiously so we can be sure that something incredibly complex as this was understood, all the good and bad, and we save as many lives as possible without unintentionally doing more harm than good. Also, if California wanted to reject it even if it saved everyone that needed an organ to live at a minimal cost, and they wanted to keep their archaic system, if you are not free to be stupid, you are not free and that includes the right of the state to do stupid things as long as they do not violate the U.S. Constitution and I don't believe their are any issues in this regard. They can ban abortion and they can ban organ donations or regulate it in any way they wish.

A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.

DWTurnipseed wrote:America was great because America HAD no enemies!!!1776 and 1812 were the only wars worth fighting in our history...

If only you had posted this one day earlier, the irony would have lived in infamy.

A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.

blackduckdog2 wrote:Yeah……..that's what Jesus was all about. Kill 'em all, Scaup. I didn't think it was possible, but you're an even worse Christian than you are an American. Wow!

.

You wouldn't know a good Christian from a bad one. You are in no place to judge. Yet after criticisms of others for it you do so yourself.

I don't care what kind of American a liberal boob thinks I am. Your view is entirely irrelevant in my life. Being born and breathing doesn''t make you relevant. Nor does going through life projecting your views on others.

blackduckdog2 wrote:Yeah……..that's what Jesus was all about. Kill 'em all, Scaup. I didn't think it was possible, but you're an even worse Christian than you are an American. Wow!

.

You wouldn't know a good Christian from a bad one. You are in no place to judge. Yet after criticisms of others for it you do so yourself.

I don't care what kind of American a liberal boob thinks I am. Your view is entirely irrelevant in my life. Being born and breathing doesn''t make you relevant. Nor does going through life projecting your views on others.

I think you've got a wider range from dumb to smart than anyone in here. That's gotta be worth something

"We have met the enemy, and he is us."Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up